Unfortunately your code is GPL, so no possibility to use it in a non GPL licenced scenario. Reusable code should imho be at least LGPL and better though BSD licenced. If you have some code to share and some to protect, you could split your app into the application as GPL and support library as LGPL/BSD. Better though is contributing to some utility project like jagatoo (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jagatoo)

Unfortunately your code is GPL, so no possibility to use it in a non GPL licenced scenario. Reusable code should imho be at least LGPL and better though BSD licenced. If you have some code to share and some to protect, you could split your app into the application as GPL and support library as LGPL/BSD. Better though is contributing to some utility project like jagatoo (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jagatoo)

Unfortunately? It is a provocation. My aim by using the GPL is to share my code and to prevent anyone that uses my code from not sharing it. You show it only as a constraint, it is not fair! You don't talk about my political motivations that justify this choice, you don't talk about the positive aspects of using the GPL. It is only your position and you shouldn't try to discourage people of using my code! I share all my source codes, all my programs (except at work) are under GPL, it is not a contradiction. Therefore, I say NO, there isn't a single way to think, it is not evident that I should put my support library into LGPL. Many people agree with you, JOGL is under BSD license for example, JOGG and JORBIS under LGPL but I disagree and using the GPL doesn't mean that I don't want to share my source code!

The aim of this thread is not to start a war about the choice of licence. I like open source programming a lot, I'm against closed source programming, that's my choice, not yours. Then, if you don't want to fully open your source code, don't use my source code at all and don't come here to bother me with your advertising for another project.

Finally, I will never use LGPL for my game, nor for the application, neither for my libraries

P.S: I precise that some people already reused my source code and I have made some efforts to make it a little bit easier (by adding an ANT script for example). I'm particularly angry as you mean that my choice is not good in order to share my code.

I was only saying that putting supporting code under a different license gives more freedom of choice for interested developers. And I was saying IMHO - so what's your problem

As you understand, I don't think that the GPL is a good license for sharing. It's just because it has a viral clause that forces you to put your source code under GPL as well. Consider someone writing an application that he wants to put under BSD (an osi approved open source license!). As soon as he links to a GPLed jar, he can't do that anymore. But he isn't stealing or changing or hiding the code, he is just linking to some unmodified functionality and will distibute the full source, so why should he be forced to use the GPL for his own code?

I think you gave the answer yourself: political motivation - and that IMHO sucks

And regarding the "advertising" for another project, I was just suggesting to think about a collective effort for model loaders - if you aren't interested, it's your personal choice...

Edit: couldn't resist to write some more than just holy crap, like I did in the first place

I was only saying that putting supporting code under a different license gives more freedom of choice for interested developers. And I was saying IMHO - so what's your problem

As you understand, I don't think that the GPL is a good license for sharing. It's just because it has a viral clause that forces you to put your source code under GPL as well. Consider someone writing an application that he wants to put under BSD (an osi approved open source license!). As soon as he links to a GPLed jar, he can't do that anymore. But he isn't stealing or changing or hiding the code, he is just linking to some unmodified functionality and will distibute the full source, so why should he be forced to use the GPL for his own code?

I think you gave the answer yourself: political motivation - and that IMHO sucks

And regarding the "advertising" for another project, I was just suggesting to think about a collective effort for model loaders - if you aren't interested, it's your personal choice...

Edit: couldn't resist to write some more than just holy crap, like I did in the first place

I have tried to find some people to help me on my project and a student might write a software component for it in some months, it is a collective product, it is a result of a collective effort as I asked for help sometimes (many people have helped me mainly for the tests) and I repeat that my source code has been reused. I suggested to add one of my loaders in JOGLUtils (but the creators refused, they said they don't need a MD3 loader), therefore you can't say I'm not interested in collective effort for model loaders!

I chose to restrict a little bit the freedom of all the developers (by the viral clause) in order to prevent anyone from restricting hugely the freedom of all the developers, it is a fair choice on my view, it prevents anyone from improving the library BUT not opening the source code. I think that if you share your code with others, the others should share their source codes too. The GPL is a way of trying to do it.

I'm a free human being, I'm free to defend my ideas. I know that some people here are interested in LGPL libraries to get the "best" of the two worlds:the collective effort of the open source world and the possibility of using them to make money by selling closed source products. I don't know why it would be a shame to have some political motivations as many people here implicitly speak about politics whereas I told you explicitly that I chose the license to defend my convictions. I hate this lack of transparency.

I suggested to add one of my loaders in JOGLUtils (but the creators refused, they said they don't need a MD3 loader), therefore you can't say I'm not interested in collective effort for model loaders!

JOGLUtils is BSD so unless I'm completely misunderstanding the GPL license (please correct me if I do), you have basically offered the JOGLUtils folks to violate the license of your own code, haven't you?

JOGLUtils is BSD so unless I'm completely misunderstanding the GPL license (please correct me if I do), you have basically offered the JOGLUtils folks to violate the license of your own code, haven't you?

Yes you're right. I should program less and sleep more. Good remark, thank you.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org